Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942

[Denniss]

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/aufkl/b7lg2.html
-> Loss listed as D-4, this was the recon version of the D-series

one C-5 and two E-3 listed as losses for this month but without enemy action

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Denniss

However the D-4 was not a recce model. As per John Vasco and his book, the situation was confused with regard to the D-1/D-4 model, but from what I can read out of what he says, the recce model D-1 was discontinued and replaced with a long range fighter version and it was those that for some reason was re-named D-4.

I can understand that a recce unit needs all the range it can get from its aircraft, so I don't find it strange as such if C-5 models were modified for greater range and when finished classified for some reason as D-4, but it would be nice to get a confirmation this really happened.

Cheers
Stig

[Denniss]

According to German Bundesarchive Data the D-4 was classified in RLM production reports as recce. Only 6 were built by Messerschmitt Augsburg.
Of the D-1 only 21 were built by Focke-Wulf.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Yes Denniss, that is what Vasco also says, but that profile was changed and the D-1 became a long range fighter only and also went for those six converted to D-4.

But our topic is not concerning those six WNr which was built as D-1/D-4 but an aircraft which according to Mankau/Petrick was built as a C-5 and according to the loss report was a D-4. No such beast is referred to in any of my published sources (that I can see, that is)

As I said in my previous e-mail, I have no problems to accept that a C-5 (or perhaps many C-5s) was rebuilt with greater range as the outcome. What I want to know is if that really happened here and to any other aircraft referred to as D-4 and which didn't belong to those original six.

Cheers
Stig

[Denniss]

Do we have any confirmation the Werknummer reported for the loss is correct?

D-1 to D-4 conversion sounds fishy as D-1 are recorded for Focke-Wulf but D-4 for MttA although this wouldn't completely rule out a conversion. They might not have been reported as FW D-1 production but as MttA D-4 production.

[Stig Jarlevik]

I am just quoting what the experts say Denniss....

Cheers
Stig

[Jim P.]

There was a previous recorded loss for WNr. 2262 from Nov-40 as a Bf 110C-5. 70% assessed damage would generally be considered a write-off, but that wasn't an absolute by any means. There are numerous instances of 70-80% reported losses showing up later. Other than the Nov-40 loss there is no other conflict with the WNr. On the other hand there is no absolute as to the accuracy of the WNr. or machine type in either instance. The loss reports were hand recorded, passed on to the reporting authority and manually typed into the official reports. The Aug-42 was entered into George and my database as reported. Without other information there's not much else we can do. And as an aside, 2nd later losses for Bf 110C-5s WNr. 2271 & 2272 were also reported as D-4s. Also WNr. 2295, 2300 & 2304 are listed as D-4s, the first two with no earlier recorded loss, but the first loss for last was as an E-3 - which probably muddies the waters even further. Go figure.

Bf 110C-5, 2262, n.n., , , 1.(F), 122, , , BR+PJ?, , 16-Nov-40, Bruchlandung., , Lfl.2/Kanal, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #2)-Vol.3; Vasco/Cornwell, Zerstörer, p.238, , Fl.Pl. St. Omer, 70%, H, , , Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG at Gotha in Aug-40
Bf 110D-4, 2262, Köhler, Oblt Walter (B)/Pfahl, Fw. Johann (F), , , 7.(H), LG 2, weiße H, L2+HR, BR+PJ?, , 02-Aug-42, Both MIA with crew after enemy fighter attack., , Lfl.4/Eins.Osten, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #7)-Vol.11, , (Golubinskiy), 100%, F, Bf Uffz. Max Baier, , Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG at Gotha in Aug-40

[Stig Jarlevik]

Interesting details Jim

Wasn't aware that WNr 2262 was a 'problem' one.
Bottom line then is would a C-5 rebuilt for longer range be classified as a D-4?
After all, there must be a reason why there are seemingly C-5s being written off as D-4s?

Come to think of it, if it is correct that WNr 2262 appears twice, then it is quite plausible when repaired it was also rebuilt.

Cheers
Stig

[Jim P.]

Stig, I don't know as I'd call it a problem because the 'reappearance' is far from unique. The problem of course is that without further documentary evidence, i.e. of the re-build to a D-4, this is all we have to go on, though that several other Bf 110s from the same general WNr. block were also reported as D-4s in their later lives should be significant. The research goes on!!